Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/148.129.129.154/Archive

Evidence submitted by Doc9871
148.129.129.154 has been around (sporadically) since April, 2009, and has edited Mitre Corporation, and participated in debates most recently at Talk: Bristol Palin and Talk:Mel Gibson. Bblcreator8790's first active edit was to "back up" the IP here: the second edit, which "clarifies" the IP's point (and all other contributions) are to the exact same sections of the debates that 148.129.129.154 has engaged in ("Attack BLP" at Mel Gibson, and "Engagement" at Sarah Palin). What raised my eyebrows was Bblcreator8790's "signature change" here. This is not a case of an IP user "forgetting to sign in", as the two accounts clearly talk to each other like they are separate editors. I have notified Bblcreator8790 and the IP of my suspicions (and this report) on their talk pages; Bbblcreator8790's response was blanking the page after seven days of inactivity. Thank you. Doc9871 (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
Perhaps I am guilty of the alleged crimes I am accused of. But answer me this, was what I have done so wrong? What I have done, I have done for the good of Wikipedia, and the people! Sockpuppetry, when used correctly, can be used for the benefit of Wikipedia, and not against it as is so commonly the case. I did not vandalize articles. I did not edit against the consensus or make personal attacks on other users; I only did what was right for all of Wikipedia! Of course I agree with myself, it is only natural. Even if I agree with myself more than once it should not affect the opinions of other users if they believe themselves to be in the right. If I am able to influence the opinions of others using this petty strategy then they deserve what they get! If I am in violation of Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy, then so be it. But I argue that these policies should not be set in stone; rather they should be guidelines that take into account the individual circumstances. If Wikipedia allows itself to be held hostage to strict rules and regulations then it will fall victim to poor and incorrect edits in the name of "the rules." I realize this is not a page for debating Wikipedia policy, but this debate is at the heart of this individual matter. As for my talk page, I read the message and deleted it accordingly; there was no reason to keep it there. It is of no consequence. I do not hold any ill will towards Doc for accusing me of this. He/she is only doing what he/she believes is right for Wikipedia, and hopefully, the people. Bblcreator8790 (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, bblcreator8790. There can be no doubt that whatever the outcome of this "investigation" you have done what is right for Wikipedia. The whole is not necessarily the sum of all its parts. You have put the greater good of all Wikipedia above its parts, namely the "rules" that many believe to be a bible that is unquestionable. When users make the wrong decisions or hold incorrect opinions, they must be made to change their decisions or opinions by whatever means necessary, for the good of all of Wikipedia. Editing by consensus is a noble method of carrying out edits, but sometimes the consensus is wrong. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support. I will have it made known that I remain completely loyal to Wikipedia and the people, no matter the outcome. If I must be a martyr for the greater good of Wikipedia, then so shall it be. But know this, should any potential punishment I may receive not be permanent, I vow to continue to work for the greater good of Wikpedia and the people by using whatever means necessary. The end justifies the means. Bblcreator8790 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A most noble cause. I, however, will take it one step further. Should you indeed continue your work on behalf of Wikipedia, I vow to nominate your for adminship at the earliest possible opportunity. And to those who laugh at this, remember that Hitler spent nearly a year in prison before becoming Chancellor of Germany. You may not understand the methods we use in trying to accomplish our goals, but you can sympathize with the goals themselves. For the good of Wikipedia! 148.129.129.154 (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. For the good of Wikipedia, and the people! Bblcreator8790 (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully request an indefinite block of this account to clear up this sockpuppet case. I have been made aware of my error, and there is no need to investigate further. Ignore any following edits made by this account.Bblcreator8790 (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Bblcreator8790 blocked 1 week for disruptive editing, and the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee has been notified due to the involved IP address, which belongs to the U.S. Census Bureau, as persuant per policy. –MuZemike 19:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)